Obviously he's not stepping it up though, and his lackluster play has continued. This is really hurting our second line because it seems like no matter who plays with him they are brought down to his level.

you complain about Lang being lackluster and really hurting us and yet you continue to put Zetterberg (most amount of shots on the team WITHOUT a point) out there on the first line with NO PRODUCTION whatsoever in these past three games? But alas its Lang so its okay to pin EVERYTHING going wrong on him. Hell, it's actually sort of refreashing to see that one player getting blamed for the bad play is not the GOALTENDER so far this year! It's nice to see fans actually scapegoating another player besides the Goalie... it really is.

Edited by OsGOD, 18 April 2007 - 11:08 AM.

Just one chance is all i ever wanted...just one time i'd like to win the game...from now on i'll take the chance if i can have it...just one just one

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Zets out of the lineup the last few weeks before playoffs? Do you think Zets should be 100% after being out of the line-up for two weeks? And do you think maybe Zets has a nagging injury that the wings organization is covering up?

However, it clear that Zets (even though isn't scoring) is contributing way more. His play is solid, isn't coughing up the puck everytime he gets it, and isn't passing the puck to the Flames.

I can give a guy a break if he's playing hard and smart. I can't give a guy a break who's playing like their for the other team.

...and comparing Lang and Zets is laughable at best.

lastly, please copy & paste the part where I said Lang us lost the game. thx

I agree 100% -- the guy's play is pretty uninspiring. He avoids contact like the bubonic plague.

lastly, please copy & paste the part where I said Lang us lost the game. thx

I think it is more than fair to expect more out of a superstar player on our team than a 3rd and 4th liner personally. And don't mention the salary difference.. because we all know had Zeta's agent not been a tool he would be getting paid way more than Lang.

I will copy and paste the info... once you copy and paste where I accused you of saying Lang lost us the game

Edited by OsGOD, 18 April 2007 - 11:14 AM.

Just one chance is all i ever wanted...just one time i'd like to win the game...from now on i'll take the chance if i can have it...just one just one

you complain about Lang being lackluster and really hurting us and yet you continue to put Zetterberg (most amount of shots on the team WITHOUT a point) out there on the first line with NO PRODUCTION whatsoever in these past three games? But alas its Lang so its okay to pin EVERYTHING going wrong on him. Hell, it's actually sort of refreashing to see that one player getting blamed for the bad play is not the GOALTENDER so far this year! It's nice to see fans actually scapegoating another player besides the Goalie... it really is.

Whoa.. sheesh I was just throwing out a suggestion.

(Also, *continue* to put Zetterberg on the first line? I've never made a post suggesting lines before!)

I just think that Datsyuk and Zetterberg have some chemistry with each other and to break it up would be risky. From my perspective(Note this is AN OPINION), Zetts is working his ass off, playing the body, throwing checks and working for the puck. Lang just doesn't seem to be doing that.

PS: Lang isn't doing it on the scoresheet but he's picked up his defensive game and is backchecking his ass off. But I wouldn't expect Lang haters to have noticed any of that.

That right there pretty much invalidates the rest of your post (which was completey inaccurate by the way...Detroit IMO and many others was the better team most of the game last night, especially at even strength.) You know how I can tell Lang's play is indefensible? Because the only way you and Osgod can defend Lang is by bringing up how others players arent performing. That says it all right there. Let's be honest...can anyone confuse what we've seen from Zetterberg and Lang as similar in any way? Hank needs to get on the board and produce, but Lang isnt even competing.

(Also, *continue* to put Zetterberg on the first line? I've never made a post suggesting lines before!)

I just think that Datsyuk and Zetterberg have some chemistry with each other and to break it up would be risky. From my perspective(Note this is AN OPINION), Zetts is working his ass off, playing the body, throwing checks and working for the puck. Lang just doesn't seem to be doing that.

By continuing I mean... He has been on the first line for first 3 games... and you continue to put him on the first line in your post... that is continuing to put him on the first line, correct?

As far as the chemisty... I would agree it WAS there before he got hurt. Since Zeta has been out it has been all Dats with little or no help from Zeta. Dats goal in game 1 was assisted by Holmerand schnides (no zeta) and Dats goal in Game 2 was unassisted (also no Zeta).

While I wish Zeta would return to form, he is not at 100% and despite the belief he is working his ass off all the time out there, he is also getting knocked off the puck very easily and not making or accepting passes like he did when the "chemistry" was on.

Bashing Lang should be the least up peoples concerns... until we get all players on our top line producing like they used to.

Just one chance is all i ever wanted...just one time i'd like to win the game...from now on i'll take the chance if i can have it...just one just one

That right there pretty much invalidates the rest of your post (which was completey inaccurate by the way...Detroit IMO and many others was the better team most of the game last night, especially at even strength.) You know how I can tell Lang's play is indefensible? Because the only way you and Osgod can defend Lang is by bringing up how others players arent performing. That says it all right there. Let's be honest...can anyone confuse what we've seen from Zetterberg and Lang as similar in any way? Hank needs to get on the board and produce, but Lang isnt even competing.

Well Lang has been backchecking much better than he used to. That's my observation. I guess you don't agree with it.

As for the rest of my post, I didn't call out Zetterberg did I? Did I ever say anything about his production? Z's been playing real hard which is why i've never brought his name up so why don't you back the F off.

Oh yeah, and Lidstrom has his own thread about how he had an uncharacteristically bad game so i'm not the only one brining up the FACT that Lids play led directly to the tying and eventual game winning goals. So Mr. Wizard, bringing up another players' faults for our loss last night actually makes alot of sense. It makes more sense than nitpicking Lang IMO. Lang didn't cause either of those goals against.

Furthermore, go look it up, I believe Calgary improved their shots on goal totals and their time of possession.

But I guess in you mind you can invalidate my post just by replying that it's invalid.

Get your homer shades off. Calgary picked it up a couple notches and we let off the gas a bit and they won.

What's your f-ing problem with that assessment? Sorry i'm not pinning the loss on Lang because I saw 10 other things that were more important than his play last night.

And by the way I led off my post by stating that he hasn't played lights out hockey.

That right there pretty much invalidates the rest of your post (which was completey inaccurate by the way...Detroit IMO and many others was the better team most of the game last night, especially at even strength.) You know how I can tell Lang's play is indefensible? Because the only way you and Osgod can defend Lang is by bringing up how others players arent performing. That says it all right there. Let's be honest...can anyone confuse what we've seen from Zetterberg and Lang as similar in any way? Hank needs to get on the board and produce, but Lang isnt even competing.

Well then I urge you... do tell how Lang having a point so far in the playoffs is a reason to single him out as being lazy and sucks? Thats what I don't get... He has more points this playoffs than eight other players on the team. How is that being any more lazy than those other eight?

For me, you saying... Detroit controlled the play most of the night... pretty much invalidates your post We were on our heals almost the entire game.

Gams 1 and 2 (apart from 2nd period of game 2) Wings were acting instead of reacting.... Game 3 they were reacting and thus lost the game.

Edited by OsGOD, 18 April 2007 - 11:32 AM.

Just one chance is all i ever wanted...just one time i'd like to win the game...from now on i'll take the chance if i can have it...just one just one

Lang made his salary in Washington by putting up points. To my recollection his salary was not negotiated by the Wings, we inherited that salary.

The amount of money you make doesn't equate to what your style of play is. Cleary is playing his butt off but that's his game.

Lang has never been the type of player some people expect of him just because of his salary. His salary isn't very palatable to me either but anybody with half a brain can figure out that the amount of money you make doesn't necessarily mean you a a monster forechecker or shot blocker or that you run into guy's like Phaneuf.

Lang made his salary in Washington by putting up points. To my recollection his salary was not negotiated by the Wings, we inherited that salary.

The amount of money you make doesn't equate to what your style of play is. Cleary is playing his butt off but that's his game.

Lang has never been the type of player some people expect of him just because of his salary. His salary isn't very palatable to me either but anybody with half a brain can figure out that the amount of money you make doesn't necessarily mean you a a monster forechecker or shot blocker or that you run into guy's like Phaneuf.

Not to mention it was pre-salary cap... or am I wrong about that? And the current play definitely doesn't equate to your current salary... but the play you had previous to that current contract. Next contracted price will reflect their current play. I am sure Lang's will go down (as will many other players post-cap compared to pre-cap) and I am sure if we keep Cleary and he keeps it up... his will increase a bit.

Edited by OsGOD, 18 April 2007 - 11:38 AM.

Just one chance is all i ever wanted...just one time i'd like to win the game...from now on i'll take the chance if i can have it...just one just one

I can't blame this all on Lang. Babs should be able to recognize a player who doesn't want to play the game.

I think babs job should be able to tell if a player lacks enthusiasm for the game of hockey, take him out of the game. If a player doesn't want to be here... file grievance on his contract and deduct his pay.

It's obvious that Lang's only putting on that jersey and skates because his contract says he has to. Not because he wants to. He's only after one thing, a HUGE paycheck and easy money.

For that, I blame Babs.

You're not even drinking Wing's kool-aid. You're drinking some next level shyte. Can you send me some. That stuff obviously makes you hallucinate and man, I gotta get me some of that.

What's your f-ing problem with that assessment? Sorry i'm not pinning the loss on Lang because I saw 10 other things that were more important than his play last night.

My problem is not necessarily your assessment of the team last night (I disagree but it's only an opinion)...my problem is you and Osgod saying their are more pressing concerns than how piss poor Lang, and by extension his line is playing.

QUOTE

Well then I urge you... do tell how Lang having a point so far in the playoffs is a reason to single him out as being lazy and sucks? Thats what I don't get... He has more points this playoffs than eight other players on the team. How is that being any more lazy than those other eight?

It's the same reason I thought Lang was awful against Edmonton last season while many thought he "stepped it up". Points arent everything and they damn sure dont tell the whole story all the time. Effort, energy moving your feet....I'm basically asking Lang to just compete out there, not be a superstar.

What's funny to me is how quickly people jump over some select players when the Wings lose one game, and yet never said a word when the Wings won games 1 & 2.

Strange...........

Really? I remember several posts that went something like this after games 1 and 2...."Wings were awesome tonite, but Lang and Sammy sucked". Lang was still getting killed on the radio by fans after those games, trust me.

My problem is not necessarily your assessment of the team last night (I disagree but it's only an opinion)...my problem is you and Osgod saying their are more pressing concerns than how piss poor Lang, and by extension his line is playing.

And by avoiding those other concerns we once again will falter in the 1st round. But do, go right ahead, you found your scapegoat so far this year... stick with it, you will have many on board with you. I applaud you stick to your guns by singling out Lang like so many have done to the goalies in years past... It works wonders to solve the problem we have each and every year doesn't it? I am more concerned about our other lines not consistantly producing more than 1 or 2 players. But by all means focus all your anger on Lang.

Edited by OsGOD, 18 April 2007 - 11:47 AM.

Just one chance is all i ever wanted...just one time i'd like to win the game...from now on i'll take the chance if i can have it...just one just one

I don't think anyone is blaming last night's loss on Lang, but the fact remains that he is the 2nd line center AND on the second pp unit. Show me one other team competing for the cup in the western conference where the 2nd line center is as unproductive.

Are you kidding? Block you? And miss watching you stumble around the forum looking for an argument like a dog sniffing butts? It would be like turning off a bad episode of Jerry Springer. You know you shouldn't be watching, but you just... can't... help... it...